When the DM goes crazy

[ForceUser]

Oh, there was one other thing I wanted to mention. I never let players use Bluff, Sense Motive, Diplomacy, or Intimidate upon one another. I think that's just silly--with NPCs, it's a good way to resolve situations, but if a PC wants to believe that another PC is bullsh-tting him, that's his prerogative. It's his character and he can believe what he wants to believe. I try to make it a point never to tell a player how his character feels; thus, I don't use dice when resolving social issues between PCs. I make them role-play it. This alleviates problems like this one you are describing.

 

[iwatt]

Oh, there was one other thing I wanted to mention. I never let players use Bluff, Sense Motive, Diplomacy, or Intimidate upon one another.

I'm just the opposite: I allow the use of these skills. But I'm blessed with players who have no problem separating OOC knowledge from IC. They even relish knowing their characters are ignorant dolts who are getting shafted by the kender

 

[Philip]

I am sorry to say that the scenario you described screamed 'potential trouble'! to me when I read it.

A. There is an event that MUST occur
B. A PLAYER's enjoyment is dependend on the outcome
C. The setup is such that there is only a single trigger for the event (the screams and ruckuss)
D. The motivations of the other PCs are not tied in any way the the event (other than: you're adventurers and thus you should want to investigate trouble downstairs)

You were taking a gamble with this setup, and sometimes you just lose such a gamble. It happens to all DMs. Maybe you are blessed with players that often react as you expect them too react, and then its often easy to fall into creating setups such as you did, because 90% of the time they succeed immediately, and most of the other cases you can get the players on track by making a few on-the-fly adjustments.

If you don't have easy players I would suggest:

1. Preparing several alternate events that fullfill the same purpose:
Tell the other player that he may meet the new PC cleric in town, or on a campsite a day later, or when looking for a potential employer. Just setup different routes to the same event, your players will never know anyway.

2. Metagame
If a player's enjoyment of the game is at stake I always inform the other players. That way they can work with me to bring about the event instead of (inadvertently) against me.

3. Make multiple triggers
Maybe the Sorcerer is asked to pay the bribe to the guard at the inn, and is asked downstairs just before the cleric confronts the dwarf. Maybe the fighter outside sees a gateguard stagger around with a bottle of drink, leaving the gate unguarded when a group of nasty ogres approaches from the east.

4. Tie the event to other PCs motivations
If one of the PCs is looking for a long-lost sibling, have the cleric carry a piece of vital information. If one of the PCs is looking for riches, have the cleric carry a treasure map he wants to sell. That way the other PCs will automatically gravitate towards the event.

 

[iwatt]

I am sorry to say that the scenario you described screamed 'potential trouble'! to me when I read it.

A. There is an event that MUST occur
B. A PLAYER's enjoyment is dependend on the outcome
C. The setup is such that there is only a single trigger for the event (the screams and ruckuss)
D. The motivations of the other PCs are not tied in any way the the event (other than: you're adventurers and thus you should want to investigate trouble downstairs)

You were taking a gamble with this setup, and sometimes you just lose such a gamble. It happens to all DMs. Maybe you are blessed with players that often react as you expect them too react, and then its often easy to fall into creating setups such as you did, because 90% of the time they succeed immediately, and most of the other cases you can get the players on track by making a few on-the-fly adjustments.

If you don't have easy players I would suggest:

1. Preparing several alternate events that fullfill the same purpose:
Tell the other player that he may meet the new PC cleric in town, or on a campsite a day later, or when looking for a potential employer. Just setup different routes to the same event, your players will never know anyway.

2. Metagame
If a player's enjoyment of the game is at stake I always inform the other players. That way they can work with me to bring about the event instead of (inadvertently) against me.

3. Make multiple triggers
Maybe the Sorcerer is asked to pay the bribe to the guard at the inn, and is asked downstairs just before the cleric confronts the dwarf. Maybe the fighter outside sees a gateguard stagger around with a bottle of drink, leaving the gate unguarded when a group of nasty ogres approaches from the east.

4. Tie the event to other PCs motivations
If one of the PCs is looking for a long-lost sibling, have the cleric carry a piece of vital information. If one of the PCs is looking for riches, have the cleric carry a treasure map he wants to sell. That way the other PCs will automatically gravitate towards the event.

Actually, from other posts by Quasqueton I'm pretty sure he would have handles it somehow except that he got frsustared with the halflings "weedling".

But you're point is valid. Hinging everything on one event is a gamble, but sometimes a DM has to gamble.

 

[ARandomGod]

I'm rather surprised at some comments here. Where, exactly, was I railroading?

Quasqueton

Some people call a LOT of things railroading. I think that, in this instance, you were "railroading" in the sense that you were GMing a game... At least that's what I get there.

I would've told the halfling player "make a bluff check." If they argued, point out a) they checked in with a dwarf, b) their dwarf is missing, and c) you *are* hiding something. A & B mean you are a valid suspect and C is the proof.

This is, of course, the best way to handle it. I'll additionally suggest that, instead of telling your players to make a bluff check, you tell them they now CAN make a bluff check. IE< give the the default that they are suspicious, and let them try (or not) to seem unsuspicious.

Well, the bluff check issue certainly would have gotten to me too.

If they argue further, you can always go with my initial thought. Which was to say:

"Interesting point. You can now, if you choose, roll a bluff check to see if you can make the GM believe you. I'll warn you that he has a LOT of skill ranks in sense motive."

 

[ARandomGod]

Oh, there was one other thing I wanted to mention. I never let players use Bluff, Sense Motive, Diplomacy, or Intimidate upon one another. I think that's just silly--with NPCs, it's a good way to resolve situations, but if a PC wants to believe that another PC is bullsh-tting him, that's his prerogative. It's his character and he can believe what he wants to believe. I try to make it a point never to tell a player how his character feels; thus, I don't use dice when resolving social issues between PCs. I make them role-play it. This alleviates problems like this one you are describing.

Interesting point, and one that I was considering making an edit to my post to add in. He can roll all the bluff checks if he wants, but if it's against another PC, that PC gets to set the "situational modifier" himself. Meaning I'll let them do it if they want to make it random themselves, but I won't enforce any result. Kind of like how I'll let characters sometimes make a will save or a wisdom roll themselves to see if their character will do something that their character is tempted to do but they know is a bad idea...